In recent times, the time period hybrid battle has taken a conspicuous place in strategic discourse as the newest buzzword indicating yet one more revolution in army affairs (Mahnken & Maiolo, 2008; Murray & Mansoor, 2012; Fridman, 2018; Klijn & Yüksel, 2019). Quite a few analysts and teachers have recognized Russia’s operations in japanese Ukraine specifically as an entirely “new approach of waging battle” (Bachmann & Gunneriusson, 2015, p.199), alleging that the Russian mixture of standard and unconventional forces alongside the prolific use of cyber instruments and knowledge know-how constitutes a break in trendy strategic follow (Mahnken & Maiolo, 2008; Murray & Mansoor, 2012; Jordan et al., 2016; Fridman, 2018). Historians, alternatively, have pointed to the overarching continuity in historic warfare, displaying that hybridity in battle has been efficiently exploited way back to the Peloponnesian Wars (Heuser, 2010; Murray & Mansoor, 2012). Issues of continuity and discontinuity however, all through the abounding new literature on hybrid warfare, there was no rigorous evaluation of its place throughout the broader pantheon of strategic idea – whereas such an strategy can assist army practitioners and analysts perceive the strategic significance and theoretical pedigree of recent hybrid warfare(Grey, 1999; 2005; Murray & Mansoor, 2012; Klijn & Yüksel, 2019).
Taking paradigms from classical strategic idea and contrasting them with modern-day practices in so-called hybrid warfare permits analysts to determine whether or not these strategies are really new and the place such practices match into the broader discipline of strategic research. Subsequently, this paper pursues an exploration of the fashionable discourse on hybrid battle throughout the bounds of classical strategic idea. Consequently, this analysis intends to contribute to the creation of a extra thorough and grounded understanding of a extremely advanced concern that has come to dominate army discourse over the course of the earlier decade. In doing so, it’s argued that, whereas hybrid warfare won’t be helpful as a doctrinal idea, it’d show helpful as an analytical framework to analysis the character of battle within the broadest Clausewitzian sense. To that finish, this article is going to first define some conceptual parameters of what constitutes hybrid warfare. Based mostly on these parameters, a number of theoretical ideas shall be used to construct an analytical framework supposed to seize the hybrid warfare phenomenon inside a framework of strategic idea. Flowing from this framework, we’re capable of see what’s and what’s not new.
Conceptual parameters of hybrid warfare
The time period hybrid warfare – alongside different allegedly ‘new’ ideas in battle – has come to occupy an more and more distinguished place in army strategic discourse prior to now decade, changing into particularly salient after Russia’s actions in Ukraine in 2014 (Bachmann & Gunneriusson, 2015; Fridman, 2018; Galeotti, 2016; Klijn & Yüksel,, 2019). It has since turn into an inherently contested idea with analysts both defending or criticising its doctrinal usefulness, leading to a nonetheless ongoing definitional debate surrounding the query: what even is hybrid warfare (Cullen & Reichborn-Kjennerud, 2017; Murray & Mansoor, 2012; Spearin, 2018)? With a view to keep away from being slowed down within the definitional specifics, this textual content doesn’t intend to offer one authoritative definition, however fairly appears on the historic discourse surrounding the subject with the intention to set some descriptive parameters on the idea – parameters upon which a broad consensus exists amongst hybrid warfare’s most distinguished thinkers.
Canvassing the discourse: A story of two hybrids
A time period that, in its essence, refers back to the multiplicity — and subsequent combination — of all accessible devices of energy is sure to trigger confusion. Over time, the time period hybrid warfare has turn into bloated, transferring from a purely army idea to capturing broader parts of statecraft similar to data campaigns, competitors, and sabotage that both do or don’t fall throughout the realm of battle (NCTV, 2016; Van Loon & Verstegen, 2019; Van Haaften, 2020; Cullen & Reichborn-Kjennerud, 2017). The catch-all nature of the time period signifies that teachers and establishments have, because the early 2000s, give you definitions that every appear to have a unique emphasis. Consequently, the discourse surrounding the hybrid adjective has turn into break up into two overlapping classes: (1) one focusing extra narrowly on the army dimension, and (2) one specializing in the holistic risk surroundings.
Because the early 2000s, Frank Hoffman (2009) – arguably hybrid warfare’s main theorist – has expounded a imaginative and prescient of hybrid warfare as a purely army idea. In a collection of influential articles, Hoffman posits that battle within the 21st century will possible be characterised by a convergence of battle modes: a compression of all ranges and strategies of battle – together with standard capabilities, irregular ways, numerous depth ranges, and actor varieties (Mattis & Hoffman, 2005; Hoffman, 2009; Mahnken & Maiolo, 2008). As Hoffman (2008, p.37) places it, adversaries will combine “the lethality of state battle with the fanatical and protracted fervour of irregular warfare.” He defines hybrid warfare because the mixing and fusing of “the total vary of strategies and modes of battle right into a single battlespace” (Hoffman, 2009, p.36). This results in a battle surroundings during which adversaries can successfully alter the levers of warfare to their liking — emphasising standard strategies one second and switching to guerrilla warfare the following. There’s a historic precedent of blending standard with unconventional strategies in warfare, however what separates Hoffman’s hybrid warfare idea from earlier theories similar to fourth-generation warfare or compound wars is the deep operational and tactical integration of battle modes by the exploitation of high-technology and the informational sphere (Caliskan, 2019; Mattis & Hoffman, 2009; Hoffman, 2008). In different phrases, hybrid warfare as a army idea is targeted on the battlespace which — regardless of being steered from the strategic degree — locations emphasis on fusing and coordinating actions on the operational and tactical ranges (Caliskan, 2019; Mattis & Hoffman, 2005; Hoffman, 2008).
The restricted nature of Hoffman’s hybrid warfare idea was broadened exponentially after Russia’s actions in Ukraine in 2014 — and because the idea broadened, so did confusion relating to its conceptualisation (Bachmann & Gunneriusson, 2015; Caliskan, 2019; Galeotti, 2016). In Ukraine, Russia managed to mix standard strategies, unconventional strategies, and non-military means: utilizing covert Particular Forces alongside non-state actors, disinformation campaigns, cyberattacks, and vitality diplomacy; thus destabilising Ukraine in a efficiently holistic trend to the shock of Western observers (Bachmann & Gunneriusson, 2015; Fridman, 2018; Klijn & Yüksel, 2019; Kilinskas, 2015; Seely, 2017). Prompted by the Russian strategy to Ukraine, the main target of the talk shifted in the direction of the non-kinetic elements of hybridity, transferring away from Hoffman’s battlespace-oriented idea in the direction of a broader notion that encapsulates the holistic risk surroundings, which incorporates — and maybe even prefers — non-military devices of energy. In different phrases, transferring away from the strategic to the grand strategic (Caliskan, 2019; Klijn & Yüksel, 2019). The IISS Navy Stability 2015, for instance, defines Russian hybrid warfare as follows:
“The usage of army and non-military instruments in an built-in marketing campaign designed to realize shock, seize the initiative and achieve psychological in addition to bodily benefits utilising diplomatic means; subtle and speedy data, digital and cyber operations; covert and infrequently overt army and intelligence motion; and financial stress” (IISS Navy Stability, 2015).
The extent to which built-in campaigns are new is debatable, however this conceptualisation does increase the notion of hybrid warfare into a way more inclusive idea, going past the army and successfully watering down the notion of hybrid warfare, with the discourse more and more referring to hybrid threats as an alternative (Caliskan, 2019; Galeotti, 2016; Treverton, Thvedt, Chen, Lee, McCue, 2018). This inclusiveness has subsequently discovered its approach into doctrinal definitions by NATO, the EU, and Western governments which all emphasise the broadness of the hybrid idea (Caliskan, 2019; Galeotti, 2016, Treverton et al., 2018). The system beneath evaluation due to this fact moved from the battlespace — with a transparent army focus — to the world risk surroundings which incorporates all devices of state energy.
Conceptual parameters
Making sense of hybrid warfare as an idea thus means distinguishing between two separate discourses, every with a specific focus: (1) hybridity within the army dimension, and (2) hybridity within the risk surroundings. The primary discourse refers to a set of operational and tactical selections in a battlespace and is characterised by a convergence of assorted battle modes, enhanced by the exploitation of high-tech weaponry (Mattis & Hoffman, 2005; Hoffman, 2008; Seely, 2017). Hoffman (2008) notes Hezbollah within the Second Lebanese Warfare in 2006 as a first-rate instance of a hybrid adversary: a non-state actor utilizing a combination of guerrilla and traditional ways in an city surroundings with subtle weaponry. Hezbollah “successfully fused militia forces with extremely educated fighters and antitank guided missile groups into the battle” (Hoffman, 2008, p.37-38). Within the army dimension, due to this fact, the hybrid warfare idea has the next parameters: going down inside a battlespace and involving the convergence and harmonisation of:
- Typical strategies – standard ways, formations, and organisation
- Irregular strategies – irregular ways, formations, and organisations; together with terrorism, guerrilla and proxy warfare, indiscriminate violence, coercion, and prison dysfunction
- Numerous actor varieties – various between conventional, irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive; can embody state and non-state actors
- Superior weaponry and high-technology – similar to community know-how, cyber instruments, and superior standard weapons
The second discourse expands the notion from the battlespace to the worldwide risk surroundings, with actors utilizing all devices of energy in an built-in trend to realize particular aims (Caliskan, 2019; Galeotti, 2016; Treverton et al., 2018; Seely, 2017). The concentrate on non-kinetic measures, nonetheless, dilutes the idea of hybrid warfare past any measure of army usefulness, with the main target shifting from hybrid warfare to hybrid threats, and thus from the strategic to the grand strategic. Russia’s actions in Ukraine, for instance, had a distinctly grand strategic character in utilizing the varied devices of state energy in live performance. On this sense, the literature broadly outlines the next parameters surrounding the second discourse (NCTV, 2016; Treverton et al., 2018): going down inside a worldwide risk surroundings and involving the convergence and harmonisation of:
- Navy means – each standard and irregular strategies
- Diplomatic means – utilizing or influencing processes in worldwide legislation (e.g. treaties, conventions, and frameworks) to exert diplomatic stress upon a competitor or adversary
- Financial means – generate financial stress by sanctions, entry to markets, vitality coverage or in any other case disturb a competitor’s financial and business exercise
- Cyber instruments – espionage, manipulation, affect, assault, and sabotage
- Propaganda – (dis)data campaigns and pretend information
One conceptualisation takes the slender view, whereas the opposite takes an expansive, all-inclusive view — making a definitional hodgepodge which renders the hybrid warfare notion fairly ineffective as a doctrinal idea. Nonetheless, what each approaches have in widespread is that every requires a holistic view of the taking part in discipline — a taking part in discipline during which traces are blurred. In each, with the intention to achieve success, an actor must be skilful in understanding which lever to show up and which to show down in accordance with the enemy’s weaknesses and one’s personal strengths. In each, the strategist is invited to rediscover the all-encompassing nature of battle as “greater than a real chameleon that barely adapts its traits to the given case” (Clausewitz, 1976, p.89). Hybridity, each in a battlespace-context as in a worldwide context, poses exactly that chameleonic problem: morphing and shifting always. The parameters as outlined above are nothing new in their very own proper, neither is the combination of them into a complete altogether revolutionary — however to grasp the strategic significance of such an integration, it could be helpful to carry them in opposition to the sunshine of already confirmed strategic ideas. The next part will due to this fact try to seize the above parameters inside a number of core paradigms from the sphere of strategic idea. Doing so will present that, whereas hybrid warfare won’t be helpful as a doctrinal idea, it’d show helpful as an analytical framework to analysis the character of battle within the broadest Clausewitzian sense.
Strategic idea: setting up a framework for evaluation
The good worth of strategic idea lies in its try to determine these parts of battle which appear to pop up constantly all through ages of human battle (Caliskan, 2019; Osinga, 2005). Strategic idea “assumes that every one wars in historical past share sure widespread traits” (Caliskan, 2019, p.41). It’s the identification of those traits which ends up in a holistic system of interrelated ideas that will — by its patchwork character — approximate the good chimera which so many battle students have tried to seize: the character of battle. Strategic idea’s numerous summary rules are lifted from historic case research by troopers with direct expertise and astute college students of warfare with the purpose of building usually relevant truths about battle (Strachan, 2019; Grey, 1999; 2005) and several other of those common truths appear to return collectively within the hybrid warfare phenomenon.
Inside the parameters on hybrid warfare set out within the above part, one witnesses the confluence of a number of core theoretical paradigms which have already got a confirmed historic track-record. In making an attempt to seize the hybrid warfare idea inside a framework of strategic idea, this paper distinguishes between these theoretical rules making up hybrid warfare’s character — or its defining options —and people making up its operational practices. It’s right here argued that hybrid warfare’s character is (1) grand strategic and (2) irregular, whereas its operations are outlined by (3) data warfare and (4) the OODA-loop. Taken collectively, these 4 pillars are relevant to each ranges of the hybrid warfare discourse and point out a broad flexibility, fluidity, and changeability that’s in keeping with classical considering on the character of battle. Nonetheless, earlier than inspecting the theoretical pillars underlying hybrid warfare, you will need to word what is supposed on this paper when one speaks of the character of battle.
The character of battle: Thucydides, Clausewitz & Moltke
Finding out the character of battle may be in comparison with attempting to catch smoke: it’s an elusive and near-impossible activity that has spawned a physique of literature so expansive that’s deserving of its personal educational self-discipline. There are few students who’ve managed to make a long-lasting contribution to the talk on what exactly constitutes the character of battle, however two who managed to take action are right this moment thought of giants within the discipline: Thucydides and Clausewitz (Schake, 2017; Heuser, 2010; Schuurman, 2010; Van der Venne, 2020). Regardless of representing two totally different disciplines — the previous a historian and the latter a army theorist — each males have formed considering on the character of battle to a considerable diploma. Each take into account battle to be an inherently human affair that, when studied as a complete – a gestalt in Clausewitz’s phrases — should embody materials and non-material parts. Each have created works which can be so large, contradictory, and all-encompassing they are often seen as the one works that replicate the human complexity of battle’s primarily human underpinnings. And each managed to distil the character of battle into a sublime trinity of non-material parts that successfully captures battle within the broadest attainable sense: as a kaleidoscopic socio-cultural occasion (Clausewitz, 1976; Handel, 2008; Schake, 2017; Schuurman, 2010; Strassler, 1996; Van der Venne, 2020; Waldman, 2009).
When discussing the theoretical underpinnings of hybrid warfare, it should be famous that the ensuing framework is on no account a definitive evaluation however must be seen as a tentative first try to offer form to a shapeless factor: the character of battle. For causes of readability and a restricted scope, this evaluation will confine itself to Clausewitz’s imaginative and prescient on the character of battle — extra particularly Clausewitz’s main trinity: battle being outlined by (1) coverage, (2) probability, and (3) ardour (Schuurman, 2010; Van der Venne, 2020; Waldman, 2009). The broadness and fluidity of the hybrid warfare idea makes it fairly too woolly to function a doctrinal idea, nevertheless it would possibly assist in giving extra sensible handles to the broad and fluid conceptualisation of Clausewitz’s main trinity. Whereas the Clausewitzian trinity has turn into a wellspring of educational controversy, this paper builds its framework throughout the notion that Clausewitz’s main trinity “is broad and fluid sufficient to embody the whole spectrum of battle”, with its non-material focus permitting totally different scope, actor varieties, and depth ranges (Van der Venne, 2020, p.3). The first trinity envisions battle as an ever-morphing chameleonic problem requiring the strategist to be versatile and adaptable – fully in keeping with hybrid warfare’s fluctuating options.
As an instance how Clausewitzian flexibility would possibly discover expression in strategic follow, one want solely have a look at his most profitable disciple: Helmuth von Moltke the Elder (Hughes, 1993). Regardless of not abandoning a scientific physique of labor by way of army idea, the Prussian common officer enjoys a repute as one among “the ablest army [minds] since Napoleon” (Chandler, 1980, p.198) and is seen because the purest embodiment of Clausewitzian rules (Hughes, 1993; Gross, 2016). Moltke’s considering on the character of battle straight displays Clausewitz in that he too believed battle to be inherently unsure (Hughes, 1993). Three key elements of Moltke’s legacy as a strategist convey Clausewitz from the realm of idea into the realm of follow: (1) a decentralised operational strategy, (2) an emphasis on flexibility over doctrine in decision-making, and (3) an emphasis on velocity (Chandler, 1980; Hughes, 1993; Gross, 2016). Consequently, Moltke’s strategy to technique may be seen extra as “a sample of thought” fairly than a collection of strict procedures; extra artwork than science (Hughes, 1993). These three key elements may simply be recognised within the modern discourse on hybrid warfare – as will turn into obvious within the theoretical framework laid out beneath – foreshadowing hybridity’s pure match inside Clausewitzian thought. So, with Clausewitz’s view of battle because the philosophical backdrop, how does one conceptualise the core theoretical pillars of the hybrid warfare phenomenon?
As Determine 1 exhibits, the proposed framework — primarily based upon the parameters outlined within the above part — takes present theoretical paradigms to look at how the idea suits throughout the broader pantheon of strategic idea. So, in opposition to the backdrop of the Clausewitzian main trinity, hybrid warfare’s character is (1) grand strategic and (2) irregular, whereas its operations are marked by (3) data warfare and (4) the OODA-loop. These 4 pillars undergird the fashionable hybrid warfare idea.
Character of hybrid warfare
1. Grand technique
This paper proposes that hybrid warfare is basically grand strategic in character. In utilizing grand technique as the primary pillar within the theoretical underpinnings of the hybrid idea, one ought to word that this pillar refers primarily, however not solely, to the expanded interpretation of hybrid threats which emerged after the Russo-Ukrainian battle of 2014. Following a definition given by Colin Grey (2010, p.18), the time period grand technique must be understood as:
“[the] course and use fabricated from all or any among the many whole property of a safety neighborhood in assist of its coverage objectives as determined by politics. The speculation and follow of grand technique is the idea and follow of statecraft itself”.
The confluence and combination of all devices of state energy is nothing new and has a theoretical pedigree paying homage to thinkers similar to Julian Corbett, J.F.C. Fuller, Basil Liddell Hart, Edward Mead Earle, and Colin Grey (Caliskan, 2019; Strachan, 2014; 2019; Fuller, 1923; Liddell Hart, 1928; 1991; Grey, 1999; 2005; Milevski, 2014). Within the ranges of battle, army technique is basically subordinate to grand technique, as Determine 2 exhibits. Because the discourse on hybrid warfare illustrates, the distinction between grand technique and technique is sort of synonymous to the distinction between a risk surroundings and a battlespace-oriented view of hybrid warfare: the previous focuses on the harmonisation of all of the devices of state energy whereas the latter is restricted to the army instrument (Caliskan, 2019; Strachan, 2014; Grey, 1999; 2005; 2010). In idea, due to this fact, a transparent distinction is made between army technique and grand technique, with army technique taking a subordinate place (Caliskan, 2019; Strachan, 2014; Grey, 2010). In follow, nonetheless, such clear boundaries not often apply. If one considers Colin Grey’s (2010, p.28) injunction that “[all] technique is grand technique [and military] methods should be nested in a extra inclusive framework,” the grand technique pillar will also be utilized to the narrower battlespace-oriented view, be it in a restricted capability. However how exactly does the time period grand technique apply when describing the character of recent hybrid warfare?
Inside the vary of grand strategic choices accessible to a state, army motion is however one ingredient to be utilized in live performance with different devices (Caliskan, 2019; Strachan, 2014; Grey, 2010). Based mostly on a penetrating evaluation of the grand technique/hybrid warfare nexus, Murat Caliskan (2019) identifies 5 foremost devices of energy which make up a state’s grand technique: (1) financial, (2) social, (3) army, (4) informational, and (5) diplomatic measures — Determine 3 beneath is a near-exact duplicate of Caliskan’s (2019) mannequin. The beforehand analysed discourse on hybrid warfare as an expanded idea displays these devices virtually completely, showcasing how the risk surroundings interpretation of hybrid warfare is solely a variation on a theme — a fairly tried-and-true theme at that. As Caliskan (2019, p.50) mentions “[it] is attention-grabbing and ironic that the defence neighborhood rediscovers “grand technique” with every new time period coined”.
Russian actions in Ukraine in 2014 — and the ensuing buzz surrounding “Russian hybrid warfare” (Fridman, 2018) — may be seen as nothing greater than the profitable execution of a grand technique (Caliskan, 2019; Grey, 2010). That is mirrored within the 2013 article by Russia’s Chief of the Common Employees Valery Gerasimov (as quoted in Galeotti, 2016, p.287), whose imaginative and prescient is seen as a basis stone for Russian hybrid warfare:
“The main target of utilized strategies of battle has altered within the course of the broad use of political, financial, informational, humanitarian, and different nonmilitary measures – utilized in coordination with the protest potential of the inhabitants. All that is supplemented by army technique of a hid character, together with finishing up actions of informational battle and the actions of special-operations forces. The open use of forces – typically beneath the guise of peacekeeping and disaster regulation — is resorted to solely at a sure stage, primarily for the achievement of ultimate success within the battle.”
As a result of latest interpretations of hybridity emphasise the harmonisation of army and non-military measures — together with financial, social, informational, and diplomatic strategies — hybrid warfare is clearly grand strategic in character (Caliskan, 2019; Galeotti, 2016; Treverton et al., 2018; Seely, 2017).
The concertation of assorted devices of state energy is due to this fact nothing new in its personal proper, however the hybrid phenomenon isn’t restricted to the uppermost areas of (grand) strategic decision-making. As now we have seen, the idea started with a purely army focus, with explicit consideration paid in the direction of harmonisation on the operational and tactical ranges, fairly than the strategic and grand strategic (Caliskan, 2019; Mattis & Hoffman, 2005; Hoffman, 2009; Mahnken & Maiolo, 2008). Whereas this primary pillar is perhaps most helpful in describing the expanded risk surroundings notion of hybrid warfare, the remaining three theoretical pillars are relevant to each conceptualisations — and thus to all ranges of battle.
2. Irregular warfare
The second defining function of hybrid warfare is its irregularity. In hybrid warfare, irregular strategies are blended with standard strategies (Caliskan, 2019; Hoffman, 2008; Treverton et al., 2018; Seely, 2017), however given Western militaries’ propensity to concentrate on standard battle, it’s exactly that irregularity that appears to confuse Western observers (Kitzen, 2012; Grey. 2005). Irregularity is in truth such a elementary part of hybrid warfare that Thomas Mahnken and Joseph Maiolo (2008, p.vi) — of their invaluable assortment of core strategic literature, Strategic Research: A Reader — type Frank Hoffman’s (2009) paper on hybrid warfare beneath the heading “Irregular warfare and small wars”. For these causes, this paper offers irregularity a fairly distinguished function because the second pillar within the framework. However earlier than inspecting why irregular warfare is such a key part within the sprawling hybrid idea, it’s crucial to take a look at what trendy irregular warfare entails. The writings of two key figures have been significantly instrumental within the improvement of the time period: T.E. Lawrence and Mao Tse Tung.
The heritage of irregular warfare is as previous as time itself – with variations of the idea showing within the writings of Solar Tzu, Thucydides, and Kautilya (Purvis, 2009; Kiras, 2016). Two key 20th century figures, nonetheless, gave the time period a conceptual rigour not beforehand seen. Lawrence of Arabia’s (1926) Seven Pillars of Knowledge and Mao’s (2008) On Protracted Warfare formed considering on trendy irregular warfare, which right this moment is seen as:
“[a] violent battle amongst state and non-state actors for the legitimacy and affect over the related populations. IW favours oblique and uneven approaches, although it might make use of the total vary of army and different capabilities, with the intention to erode and adversary’s energy, affect, and can” (Kiras, 2016, p.309).
Such capabilities can embody insurgency, terrorism, proxy warfare, and prison dysfunction (Caliskan, 2019). Each Lawrence and Mao primarily based their theories of warfare on direct expertise, and each agree on a number of necessary elements of the irregular warfare phenomenon: irregular warfare is (1) uneven, it’s a professional technique particularly when going through bigger standard powers; (2) amorphic, irregulars can simply morph into regulars and vice versa if the scenario requires it; and (3) people-centric, targeted on influencing and controlling populations versus territory (Lawrence, 1926; 2008; Mao, 2008: Kiras, 2016; Purvis, 2009). Irregularity due to this fact presents a fluid strategy which targets a extra highly effective opponent’s legitimacy, posing nice conceptual difficulties for big militaries targeted on standard battle (Kitzen, 2012; Kiras, 2016; Purvis, 2009). Lawrence (1926, p.198) famously describes combating an irregular foe as “consuming soup with a knife”. The overlap with hybrid warfare right here is fairly apparent.
Hybrid warfare — on each discourse ranges — is fully in keeping with Lawrence (1926; 2008) and Mao’s (2008) view of uneven, amorphic, and people-centric battle. For instance, Hoffman’s (2008) view of hybrid warfare’s multi-modal high quality is, at its core, irregular. Solely, the shifting between standard and irregular ways in battle is helped by a far-reaching operational and tactical integration by network-technology — Hezbollah within the Second Lebanon Warfare is the prime instance Hoffman (2008) offers. In flip, Russian “hybrid” actions in Ukraine and past additionally match the irregular paradigm (Treverton et al., 2018; Fridman, 2018). Russia’s holistic use of so-called little inexperienced males, prison organisations, and partisan forces alongside its Particular Operations forces is a case-in-point, checking the bins for uneven ways and amorphousness (Bachmann & Gunneriusson, 2015; Fridman, 2018; Klijn & Yüksel, 2019; Kilinskas, 2015; Seely, 2017). Furthermore, Russian disinformation campaigns and spreading of propaganda in goal states is clearly people-centric in that it goals to delegitimise adversary’s governments within the eyes of its populations (Treverton et al., 2018). So, hybrid warfare on each discourse ranges is characterised by irregularity, making it a core pillar on this framework.
Operational elements of hybrid warfare
3. Info warfare
The function of knowledge is crucial in all battle however in hybrid warfare particularly the best way during which data is operationalised and employed is perhaps the one factor that’s really novel. Within the early Nineteen Nineties, the First Gulf Warfare made a major impression on army theorists who seen the array of high-technology weapons and communications programs as presaging a brand new approach of waging battle pushed by data (Arquilla & Ronfeldt, 1997; Molander et al., 1996). Nonetheless, subsequent analysts have struggled to return to a transparent definition of what exactly constitutes data warfare. The time period has since then been recast as an umbrella idea, delineated by Burns (1999) as “a category of methods, together with assortment, transport, safety, denial, disturbance, and degradation of knowledge, by which one maintains a bonus over one’s adversaries”. With relation to hybrid warfare, this finds expression in two concrete methods: (1) using network-technology to combine the battlespace, and (2) using data campaigns to undermine an adversary at dwelling, together with using cyber instruments.
First, using network-technology to reinforce army operations has been given rigorous consideration by a number of students hooked up to the US Division of Protection who developed the idea of network-centric warfare (Alberts, Garstka, & Stein, 2008). Community-centric warfare focuses on the “fight energy that may be generated from the efficient linking or networking of the warfighting enterprise” (Alberts et al., 2008, p.87). In doing so, dispersed teams or cells can create a single shared battlespace consciousness that enhances operational and tactical velocity, responsiveness, and effectiveness (Alberts et al, 2008; Otaiku, 2018). That is in keeping with Hoffman’s (2009) battlespace-oriented imaginative and prescient of hybrid warfare. However networking additionally applies to the broader view of hybrid warfare. Fridman (2018) outlines how Russian geopolitical thinker Aleksandr Dugin expanded the idea of network-centric warfare past the battlefield, viewing a community as “an informational dimension, during which main strategic operations are developed” (Fridman, 2018, p.78). This conceptualisation signifies that the informational sphere contains in its purview parts that have been as soon as separate: army models, communication infrastructure, managing public opinion, diplomacy, media, and social processes. This envisions a a lot bigger warfare system, which finds expression within the post-2014 conceptualisation of hybrid warfare as a holistic world risk surroundings.
Second, this broader networked risk surroundings may be exploited to undermine an adversary’s legitimacy at dwelling. Russian data campaigns in goal states are an apparent instance of how this is perhaps achieved (Treverton et al, 2018; Seely, 2017). Treverton et al. (2018) define a number of information-based instruments Russia makes use of in its hybrid warfare strategy: propaganda, home media retailers like Russia Right now (RT), social media, and pretend information. In follow, these parts are inclined to bleed into each other, however the core goal is the weaponization of knowledge with the intention of harming one’s adversary – maybe not bodily, however morally and socially (Treverton et al., 2018). Associated to the elevated networking of the worldwide system is the risk posed by cyber instruments, together with cyberattacks, cyber espionage, and cyber manipulation. In hybrid warfare phrases, Russia has repeatedly used data campaigns and cyber instruments to precede or complement army operations within the 2014 Russo-Ukraine battle. Earlier than kicking off army actions, Russia has for instance disabled the Ukrainian energy grid, attacked authorities web sites, distributed malware, and unfold propaganda and pretend information through social media and RT (Cerulus, 2019; Treverton et al., 2018; Seely, 2017).
The usage of data in hybrid warfare is of paramount significance: first within the sense of leveraging high-technology to forge a battlespace benefit, and second by weaponizing data with the intention to degrade an adversary’s legitimacy within the courtroom of public opinion. After all, you will need to keep in mind that the underlying thread on this pillar is intelligence, which might — in accordance with Caliskan (2019) — be grouped beneath the informational part of grand technique. Intelligence builds accessible data, and knowledge in a networked surroundings can result in speedy and efficient decision-making, which brings us to the fourth and closing theoretical pillar of the hybrid idea.
4. OODA-loop
The ultimate pillar defining hybrid warfare’s execution is the significance of the OODA-loop, developed by John Boyd (Qureshi, 2020; Osinga, 2005; 2015; Olsen, 2015; Coram, 2002). The OODA-loop has a legacy as an oft-quoted however ill-understood strategic idea, regularly being diminished to its easiest interpretation as a call cycle involving: (1) observe, (2) orient, (3) resolve, and (4) act (Osinga, 2005; 2015; Coram, 2002). The widespread logic is that, in warfare, the actor who manages to “out-pace or out-think the opponent” and undergo the OODA-loop extra quickly will come out victorious (Osinga, 2005, p.1). One should “keep one or two steps forward of the adversary; [and] function contained in the adversary’s time scale” (Coram, 2002, ch.24). Honouring his fighter pilot background, Boyd thus locations immense emphasis on velocity and flexibility, together with his biographer Robert Coram (2002) marking the OODA-loop as an inherently time-based idea of battle. The strategic utility of the OODA-loop stretches past the speedy battlefield, nonetheless. Giving an intensive evaluation of the nuances of the OODA-loop in itself goes nicely past the scope of this paper, and higher males than I’ve carried out so with better savvy and alacrity (see Osinga, 2005; 2015). This part will due to this fact restrict itself to giving a essentially minimised overview of the core and flexibility of the idea and the way it pertains to hybrid warfare.
Colin Grey (1999, p.90-91) wrote the next with regards to the OODA-loop’s versatile logic of battle: “Boyd’s loop can apply to the operational, strategic, and political ranges of battle […] The OODA loop could seem too humble to benefit categorization as grand idea, however that’s what it’s”. The OODA-loop’s simplicity is deceiving: it is perhaps offered as a single loop, however in actuality, it’s far more advanced (Osinga, 2005; 2015; Coram, 2002). Essentially the most full drawings of the OODA-loop in Boyd’s well-known shows present “thirty arrows connecting the varied substances, which implies a whole bunch of attainable loops may be derived” (Coram, 2002, ch.24). When transferring by the decision-cycle, a warfighter brings a number of elements to the desk which impression how that particular person strikes by the loops: e.g. cultural traditions, earlier experiences, genetics, and knowledge processing habits (Coram, 2002). Consequently, every loop is as unpredictable as the following – and “unpredictability is essential to the success of the OODA-loop” (Coram, 2002). Furthermore, one needn’t full each facet of the loop each time: when a commander has the right understanding of the quickly altering surroundings (or Fingerspitzengefühl) the loop can velocity up considerably. In essence, Boyd’s idea of battle due to this fact places “uncertainty, and cognitive processes central stage” (Osinga, 2015, p.92), with velocity and flexibility as core tenets, echoing Moltke’s view of technique as a “sample of thought” (Hughes, 1993, p.7).
In accordance with Osinga (2015, p.92), the OODA-loop’s concentrate on adaptability presents the warfighter — on each degree — with a “wealthy array of concepts and levers to govern” because the scenario modifications. This facet, mixed with Boyd’s emphasis on fluidity fairly than inflexible doctrine, make the OODA-loop a pure match to the execution of hybrid warfare. Once more, taking Russian actions in Ukraine for example, the Russians straight utilized Boyd’s injunction to utilize “selection, rapidity, shock, creating uncertainty and multidimensional warfare” (Osinga, 2015, p.54). In a collection of speedy strikes utilizing a number of devices of state energy, exploiting the political and army confusion in Ukraine, and making use of assorted actor varieties and battle modes, Russia managed to destabilise Ukraine in a speedy, adaptable, and holistic method, leaving Ukraine fairly reeling and onlookers shocked (Freedman, 2019; Bachmann & Gunneriusson, 2015; Fridman, 2018).
The OODA-loop is, in its essence, elegant and parsimonious sufficient to be relevant to all battle (Grey, 1999). Its emphasis on adaptability, velocity, and fluidity makes Boyd’s idea a pure match with the fluid and chameleonic nature of the hybrid warfare idea — on each discourse ranges. Hybrid warfare invitations the strategist to adapt shortly to a multidimensional battle surroundings, providing a number of levers to show up or down because the scenario calls for — overlapping with the OODA-loop’s concentrate on adaptability and cognitive processes (Osinga, 2015). In the long run, the OODA-loop interlocks with the opposite pillars of the theoretical framework and collectively type a complete view of the strategic idea underlying the hybrid warfare phenomenon.
Conclusion: A framework for thought
All through the abounding new literature on hybrid warfare, there was no rigorous evaluation of its place throughout the broader pantheon of strategic idea — whereas such an strategy can assist army practitioners and analysts perceive the contested idea’s strategic significance and theoretical pedigree (Grey, 1999; 2005; Murray & Mansoor, 2012; Klijn & Yüksel, 2019). To that finish, the framework proposed on this paper is supposed to seize the hybrid idea as broadly as attainable. Following Caliskan’s (2019, p.41) reminder that strategic idea “is a system of interlocking ideas and rules pertained to technique, which postulates that there exists a system of widespread attributes to all wars”, the 4 pillars as offered above should not be seen in a vacuum. All 4 parts are intertwined, entangled, and overlapping; collectively making up hybrid warfare’s theoretical base. Based mostly on the parameters of the present discourse, the hybrid warfare phenomenon is due to this fact greatest captured when viewing it as a composite of 4 theoretical paradigms: (1) grand technique, (2) irregularity, (3) data warfare, and (4) the OODA-loop. All ideas successfully bleed into each other. Consequently, hybrid warfare’s theoretical underpinning is huge, each by way of depth and breadth, which straight displays how sprawling the character of the hybrid idea has turn into. This has a number of implications for the usefulness of the hybrid warfare idea.
First, hybrid warfare consists primarily of already confirmed strategic ideas and its newness is due to this fact minimal. Claims of novelty in battle abound when a strategic context is topic to alter and after the 2014 Russo-Ukrainian battle, hybrid warfare was hailed one thing utterly new (Mahnken & Maiolo, 2008; Murray & Mansoor, 2012; Fridman, 2018; Klijn & Yüksel, 2019). Nonetheless, with strategic idea as a information, the above evaluation exhibits that solely one of many 4 pillars may be seen as comparatively new: data warfare. Hybrid warfare as a strategic idea is due to this fact in essence a coming-together of a number of well-tested rules of strategic idea right into a single broad idea.
Second, the hybrid warfare idea is way too cumbersome to function a guiding doctrinal idea. Because the discourse expanded from a battlespace-oriented view to a risk environment-oriented view of hybridity, so did confusion relating to its use. Every authorities and every establishment seems to have its personal definition, resulting in additional confusion as to how greatest to form coverage (Caliskan, 2019; Galeotti, 2016; Treverton et al., 2018; Seely, 2017). Making an attempt to disentangle the woolly idea, the above analytical framework additional exhibits that – when distilling hybrid warfare to its essence – the hybrid idea in truth repackages older paradigms which have a much better utility for policymakers. This paper due to this fact agrees with Caliskan’s (2019, p.55) assertion that “hybrid warfare doesn’t benefit adoption as a doctrinal idea”.
Third, whereas the hybrid warfare idea is hardly new and whereas the broadness of the idea undermines its doctrinal usefulness, it’d nonetheless function an analytical framework to analysis the character of recent battle within the broadest Clausewitzian sense. In trying on the nature of battle by Clausewitz’s main trinity, one tends to remain throughout the realm of non-material elements, philosophising a few phenomenon that can’t be absolutely grasped (Clausewitz, 1976; Handel, 2008; Schake, 2017; Schuurman, 2010; Strassler, 1996; Van der Venne, 2020). This paper exhibits that hybrid warfare shares a number of key options with summary considering on the character of battle within the custom of Clausewitz and Moltke: i.e. fluidity, changeability, and uncertainty. As such, the proposed framework may be seen as a tentative first try to offer some sensible handles to an summary topic: the character of battle.
Lastly, it should be famous that this evaluation is completely restricted. Although bold in scope of concepts, the scope of the phrase rely restricts the depth of research. Every pillar’s relation to the hybrid idea can spawn complete books however has been handled right here in a essentially minimised – and maybe fairly blunt – method. Furthermore, a number of necessary elements haven’t been included on this textual content, together with the inherent confusion surrounding what constitutes battle and peace in a hybrid context and the relation of hybrid warfare to gray zone battle. There’s a lot that has not been mentioned. Following Clausewitz’s (1976, p.132) instruction that idea is supposed “to make clear ideas and concepts which have turn into, because it have been, confused and entangled”, this paper hopes to contribute in a point to the elucidation of a befuddled idea. It’s clear, nonetheless, that the talk surrounding the hybrid warfare idea is way from over.
Figures
Bibliography
Alberts, D.S., Garstka, J.J., & Stein, F.P. (2008). Community Centric Warfare: Creating and Leveraging Info Superiority. C4ISR Cooperative Analysis Program (CCRP). Washington, DC: Library of Congress.
Arquilla, J., & Ronfeldt, D. (1997) In Athena’s Camp: Getting ready for Battle within the Info Age. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Company.
Bachmann, S., & Gunneriusson, H. (2015). Russia’s Hybrid Warfare within the East: The Integral Nature of the Info Sphere. Georgetown Journal of Worldwide Affairs, 16(Particular Difficulty), 198-211.
Blount, C. (2018). Helpful for the Subsequent Hundred Years? Sustaining the Future Utility of Airpower. The RUSI Journal, 163(3), 44-51.
Burns, M. (1999). Info Warfare: What and How? Carnegie Mellon College. Retrieved from https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~burnsm/InfoWarfare.html
Caliskan, M. (2019). Hybrid warfare by the lens of strategic idea. Protection & Safety Evaluation, 35(1), 40-58.
Cerulus, L. (2019, 14 February). How Ukraine turned a take a look at mattress for cyberweaponry. Politico. Retrieved from https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-cyber-war-frontline-russia-malware-attacks/
Chandler, D. (1980). Atlas of Navy Technique. New York, NY: Free Press.
Clausewitz, C. von. (1976). On Warfare. (Howard, M., & Paret, P., Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton College Press. (Authentic work revealed in 1832).
Coram, R. (2002). John Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Modified the Artwork of Warfare. New York, NY: Hachette Guide Group.
Cullen, P.J., & Reichborn-Kjennerud, E. (2017). MCDC Countering Hybrid Warfare Mission: Understanding Hybrid Warfare. Multinational Functionality Improvement Marketing campaign. Retrieved from https://property.publishing.service.gov.uk/authorities/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/647776/dar_mcdc_hybrid_warfare.pdf
Freedman, L.D. (2019). Ukraine and the Artwork of Technique. Oxford, UK: Oxford College Press.
Fridman, O. (2018). Russian ‘Hybrid Warfare’: Resurgence and Politicisation. London, UK: Hurst & Firm, London.
Fuller, J.F.C. (1923). The Reformation of Warfare. London, UK: Hutchinson & Co.
Galeotti, M. (2016). Hybrid, ambiguous, and non-linear? How new is Russia’s ‘new approach of battle’?. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 27(2), 282-301.
Grey, C.S. (1999). Fashionable Technique. Oxford, UK: Oxford College Press.
Grey, C.S. (2005). Warfare, Peace, and Worldwide Relations (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge; Taylor & Francis Group.
Grey, C.S. (2010). The Technique Bridge: Concept for Follow. Oxford, UK: Oxford College Press.
Grier, P. (2017, 30 January). The Perils of Hybrid Warfare. Air Pressure Journal. Retrieved from https://www.airforcemag.com/article/the-perils-of-hybrid-war/
Gross, G.P. (2016). The Fantasy and Actuality of German Warfare: Operational Considering from Moltke the Elder to Heusinger. Lexington, KY: The College Press of Kentucky.
Handel, M.I. (2008). Who’s afraid of Carl von Clausewitz?. In T.G. Mahnken, & J.A. Maiolo (Eds.), Strategic Research: A Reader (pp.53-71). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Heuser, B. (2010). The Evolution of Technique: Considering Warfare from Antiquity to the Current. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge College Press.
Hoffman, F.G. (2009). Hybrid warfare and challenges. Joint Pressure Quarterly, 52, 34-39.
Hughes, D.J. (1993). Moltke on the Artwork of Warfare: Chosen Writings. New York, NY: Presidio Press.
IISS. (2015). The Navy Stability 2015: The Annual Evaluation of International Navy Capabilities and Defence Economics. London, UK: Worldwide Institute for Strategic Research & Routledge.
Isherwood, M.W. (2009, 1 October). Airpower for Hybrid Warfare. Air Pressure Journal. Retrieved from https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1009hybrid/
J.L. Gaddis. (2018). On Grand Technique. London, UK: Penguin Press.
Jordan, D., Kiras, J.D., Lonsdale, D.J., Speller, I., Tuck, C., & Walton, C.D. (2016). Understanding Fashionable Warfare (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge College Press.
Kilinskas, Ok. (2015). Hybrid Warfare: an Orientating or Deceptive Idea in Analysing Russia’s Navy Actions in Ukraine? Lithuanian Annual Strategic Overview, 14, 139-158.
Kiras, J.D. (2016). Half V Irregular warfare. In D. Jordan, J.D. Kiras, D.J. Lonsdale, I. Speller, C. Tuck, & C.D. Walton (Eds.), Understanding Fashionable Warfare (pp.298-375). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge College Press.
Kitzen, M. (2012). Western Navy Tradition and Counterinsurgency: An Ambiguous Actuality. Scientia Militaria, 40(1), 1-24.
Klijn, H., & Yüksel, E. (2019, Nov 28). Russia’s Hybrid Doctrine: Is the West Barking Up the Mistaken Tree?. Clingendael Journal. Retrieved from https://www.clingendael.org/publication/russias-hybrid-doctrine-west-barking-wrong-tree
Lammi, P. (2019). A Temporary Introduction to Info Warfare. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/social-media-writings/a-brief-introduction-to-information-warfare-4958cf982d71
Lawrence, T.E. (1926). Seven Pillars of Knowledge (1962 Reprint). London, UK: Penguin Group.
Lawrence, T.E. (2008). Science of guerrilla warfare. In T.G. Mahnken, & J.A. Maiolo (Eds.), Strategic Research: A Reader (pp.266-273). New York, NY: Routledge.
Liddell Hart, B.H. (1928). When Britain Goes to Warfare: Adaptability and Mobility. London UK: Faber & Faber.
Liddell Hart, B.H. (1991). Technique. New York, NY: Plume.
Lonsdale, D.J. (2016). The research and idea of technique. In D. Jordan, J.D. Kiras, D.J. Lonsdale, I. Speller, C. Tuck, & C.D. Walton (Eds.), Understanding Fashionable Warfare (pp.21-38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge College Press.
Mahnken, T.G., & Maiolo, J.A. (2008). Strategic Research: A Reader (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mao, T.T. (2008). Issues of technique in China’s civil battle. In T.G. Mahnken, & J.A. Maiolo (Eds.), Strategic Research: A Reader (pp.274-308). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mason, R.A. (1970). Sir Basil Liddell Hart and the Technique of the Oblique Method. Royal United Providers Establishment Journal, 115(658), 37-41.
Mattis, J.N., & Hoffman, F.G. (2005). Future Warfare: The Rise of Hybrid Wars. U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, 131(11).
Milevski, L. (2014). Grand Technique and Operational Artwork: Companion Ideas and Their Implications for Technique. Comparative Technique, 33(4), 342-353.
Molander, R.C., Riddile, A., & Wilson, P.A. (1996). Strategic Info Warfare: A New Face of Warfare. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Company.
Murray, W., & Mansoor, P.R. (2012). Hybrid Warfare: Combating Complicated Opponents from the Historical World to the Current. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge College Press.
NCTV. (2016). Chimaira: Een duiding van het fenomeen ‘hybride dreiging’. Nationaal Coördinator Terrorismebestrijding en Veiligheid (NCTV).
Olsen, J.A. (2015). Airpower Reborn: The Strategic Ideas of John Warden and John Boyd. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
Osinga, F.P.B. (2005). Science, Technique, and Warfare: The Strategic Concept of John Boyd. Delft, NL: Eburon Educational.
Osinga, F.P.B. (2015). The Enemy as a Complicated Adaptive System: John Boyd and Airpower within the Fashionable Period. In J.A. Olsen (Ed.), Airpower Reborn: The Strategic Ideas of John Warden and John Boyd (pp.48-92). Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
Otaiku, A.A. (2018). A Framework for Hybrid Warfare: Threats, Challenges and Options. Journal of Protection Administration, 8(3), 1-13.
Purvis, J.W. (2009). Conventional and Irregular Warfare: A Flawed Idea for Categorizing Battle. (Dissertation, Joint Superior Warfighting Faculty, Norfolk, VA). Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a530173.pdf
Qureshi, W.A. (2020). The Rise of Hybrid Warfare. Notre Dame Journal of Worldwide & Comparative Regulation, 10(2), 174-208.
Schake, Ok. (2017). What Causes Warfare?. Orbis, 61(4), 449-462.
Schuurman, B. (2010). Clausewitz and the “New Wars” Students. Parameters, 40(1), 89-100.
Seely, R. (2017). Defining Up to date Russian Warfare. The RUSI Journal, 162(1), 50-59.
Smith, M.T. (2015). Airpower in Hybrid Warfare: Moral Implications for the Joint Pressure Commander. Naval Warfare School Division of Joint Navy Operations. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a609211.pdf
Spearin, C. (2018). Russian “Hybrid Warfare”: Resurgence and Politicisation Overview. Parameters, 48(4), 86-87.
Strachan, H.F.A. (2014). The Route of Warfare. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge College Press.
Strachan, H.F.A. (2019). Technique in idea; technique in follow. Journal of Strategic Research, 42(2), 171-190.
Strassler, R.B. (1996). The Landmark Thucydides: A Complete Information to the Peloponnesian Warfare. New York, NY: Free Press.
Treverton, G.F., Thvedt, A., Chen, A.R., Lee, Ok., McCue, M. (2018). Addressing Hybrid Threats. Swedish Defence College. Retrieved from https://www.hybridcoe.fi/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Treverton-AddressingHybridThreats.pdf
Van der Venne, T. (2020). Misreading Clausewitz: The Enduring Relevance of On Warfare. E-Worldwide Relations. Retrieved from https://www.e-ir.data/2020/02/04/misreading-clausewitz-the-enduring-relevance-of-on-war/
Van Haaften, Y.D.B. (2020, 21 January). Oorlogvoering in vredestijd. Effecten van hybride operaties op de Nederlandse krijgsmacht. Militaire Spectator. Retrieved from https://www.militairespectator.nl/thema/operaties/artikel/oorlogvoering-vredestijd
Van Loon, T., & Verstegen, S. (2019, 16 September). Manoeuvring within the Hybrid Atmosphere. On the Significance of Cooperation, Resilience and Strategic Considering. Militaire Spectator. Retrieved from https://www.militairespectator.nl/thema/strategie-internationale-samenwerking/artikel/manoeuvring-hybrid-environment
Waldman, T. (2009). Warfare, Clausewitz, and the Trinity. (Doctoral dissertation, College of Warwick, Warwick, UK). Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/obtain/pdf/40048786.pdf
Wilkie. R. (2009). Hybrid Warfare: One thing Previous, Not One thing New. Air & House Energy Journal, 23(4), 13-17.
Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations
